Two mainstreams in housing recovery post-disaster

There are two mainstreams on the housing recovery post-disaster as policymakers and aid agencies see when they support the affected people. The first approach is delivering assistance with the house as a product. Since contractors built it for the affected people, with uniform design and the same construction material, sometimes with modular elements, homeowners will receive it as a turn-key project. It is a quick intervention as people need to return to their houses badly. 

The second approach is through a process that involves a series of consultations among related stakeholders. It is longer compared to the first approach. The house design, construction material, and methodology depend on the local capacities and availability. However, this writing expresses that the second approach, i.e., the through process, is more strategic to achieve sustainable recovery, not only building back houses but also improving access to well-being and livelihood.

But why is delivering houses as products still popular? This approach is more favorable from a socio-political perspective due to less room for political tension from political parties whose constituents are in temporary shelters. Construction companies and vendors producing modular structural elements are happy since they can benefit from this reconstruction. But from the beneficiaries' perspective, there are several issues. Various sizes of family members can not be fit with a single house design. A two-room house can only fit a family with one child. If they want to expand the house, they have small capabilities to construct since they have yet to participate in the construction. Moreover, the materials used to build their houses might be available in something other than local hardware stores. Hence, it is an issue of sustainability both for expansion and maintenance.

Common questions asked by those who prefer delivering houses as a product, i.e., what kind of house is suitable for a particular disaster? What kind of construction material and system can be provided quickly? Then, they will deliver construction materials, systems, and contractors to build the houses. All of those are standard norms to be applied in their recovery strategy.

On the other hand, those who are inclined toward the process approach will ask about the local capacities and resources available. They aim to improve the local market - builders and hardware stores - and maximize the use of available material. Hence, when they think about house design and how to build, they will follow the reality in the field. Similar to practices in the development context, enhancing local builders needs proper training. It needs supply chain interventions so local hardware stores can sell appropriate construction materials. Improving access becomes essential since it is not only for construction materials but also for other aspects such as livelihood. The strategy is developed based on how homeowners and their builders can build houses and abide by the code. Even if it is not a swift rebuild, the local capacities can grow and become embedded naturally. Since the approach is a process, the current condition becomes a solid foundation for connecting to the larger market and services in the future.

Besides sustainability, the process approach can be linked to future disaster resilience. Genuine resilience is not grafted by quick-fix intervention but needs changes from within, i.e., improvement of local capacities surrounded by an adequate ecosystem for recovery.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: IG @tatansyuf  https://bit.ly/3Gcdof3.